He already posted that one. Much of it is irrelevant to what is being discussed. It consists mostly of strawman and adhom tactics, speculation, denial of molten metal, (plus great lengths to explain it in other pieces) a misrepresentation of the science and the arguments. That was instantly recognizable. That article is particularly weak, and mainly concerns the sliced beams which would be from the clean up process. With some claims we have already substantiated as being false.
I have been reading a lot on the actual research and science involved. And learning lots! There are some professional scientific refutations of several of the articles on that blog that go into great detail of the physics and chemistry how he twists and changes them to suit his needs. Very detailed and very revealing. I learnt a great deal from those alone.
It is what is called a citation bluff in essence.
The good thing about coming in on this so late, is that these things have been already refuted even by demonstration, patents and practical application.
There is a huge percentage of old and outdated misinformation around. And it certainly obfuscates any serious attempts for someone when pseudo skeptics continue to perpetuate false information. It does not go away. They do not make retractions. At least the Author of that paper did, but it is still used as a scape goat.
Who needs propaganda agents when you have people like this. And they are not too rare a breed.
This stuff can be researched, if one has an open mind, answers to questions of physics and chemistry can be found, experiments can be done, actual data can be found. Sometimes you have to stop and study something you don't know, i do that constantly.
But you will not get any of that from these types of blogs. That is not possible. It can not be considered reliable at all for logical reasons and evidential reasons that can be found if you actually bother to look.
But any excuse is seized apon without question, even when they know they are uncertain of what the actual science says, and this is skepticism?
No it is pseudo skepticism.